The Servant Girl Annihilator (Your Jack the Ripper is Showing)

Become a producer of the show and get your bonuses!

Sign up for our Patreon!

www.themidnighttrainpodcast.com 

 

We’ve all heard the story of Jack the Ripper, right? Hell, we did a two-parter on the case not too long ago. You know the story. Some crazy person, running around hacking up people, disemboweling them, and nobody knows who it was. You know, that old chestnut. There were other cases similar to the Jack the Ripper case, like the Vallisca ax murders, the Hinterkaifeck Murders, and quite a few more that we’ve covered right here on the Midnight Train. 

 

Well, this story is right in line with those unsolved atrocities and… it happened before Jack the Ripper decided to go all willy nilly and mutilate a bunch of poor women.

 

The Servant Girl Annihilator, also known as the Austin Axe Murderer and the Midnight Assassin (which is my favorite for obvious reasons), was a still, as of yet, unidentified serial killer who preyed upon the city of Austin, Texas, between 1884 and 1885. The murderer’s nickname originated with the writer O. Henry. Apparently he had mentioned the murderer in a letter he had written, coining the dipshit murderers name.

 

The brutal killings in Austin occurred three years before Jack the Ripper terrorized London's East End (and there are some who believe the Servant Girl Annihilator and Jack the Ripper were the same person and we’ll touch on that later). Although these murders happened 75 years before the term serial killer was coined, it still sealed Austin's reputation as the first city in America to have a serial killer — and the peice of crap responsible to be known as the first serial murderer in the country. Not exactly someone sane is running to be the first, but someone has to be the first something, right?

 

First, let’s talk about Austin, Texas and a smidge of its history.

 

As per Wikipedia:

Evidence of habitation of the Balcones Escarpment region of Texas can be traced to at least 11,000 years ago. Two of the oldest Paleolithic archeological sites in Texas, the Levi Rock Shelter and Smith Rock Shelter, are located southwest and southeast of present-day Austin respectively. Several hundred years before the arrival of European settlers, the area was inhabited by a variety of nomadic Native American tribes. These indigenous peoples fished and hunted along the creeks, including present-day Barton Springs, which proved to be a reliable campsite. At the time of the first permanent settlement of the area, the Tonkawa tribe was the most common, with the Comanches and Lipan Apaches also frequenting the area.

The first European settlers in the present-day Austin were a group of Spanish friars who arrived from East Texas in July 1730. They established three temporary missions, La Purísima Concepción, San Francisco de los Neches and San José de los Nazonis, on a site by the Colorado River, near Barton Springs. The friars found conditions undesirable and relocated to the San Antonio River within a year of their arrival. Following Mexico's Independence from Spain, Anglo-American settlers began to populate Texas and reached present-day Central Texas by the 1830s. The first documented permanent settlement in the area dates to 1837 when the village of Waterloo was founded near the confluence of the Colorado River and Shoal Creek.

 

Got all that? Good… maybe you can explain it to me later. Just kidding… kind of.

The victims

 

The first unfortunate victim was Mollie Smith, a 25-year-old cook working for the Walter Hall residence on Sixth Street (then named Pecan Street). She was killed on December 30, 1884, in a grisly killing filled with an extreme amount of blood due to the ax wounds to her head, abdomen, chest, legs, and arms. Her body was found outside and placed in the snow next to the family outhouse. She was attacked with an axe in her sleep, dragged into the backyard, raped and murdered. Walter Spencer, 30 yrs. old, also attacked and wounded.

 

The second poor victim was Eliza Shelly, a young woman who worked as a cook for the family of Dr. Lucian Johnson. Killed a few months after Mollie Smith, Shelly had been brutally murdered on Cypress Street on May 7, 1885, and her head left almost completely split from the blows of an axe. She was the mother of three children.

 

Because of the killer's apparent weapon of choice — an axe — the murders were first known as the Austin Axe Murders until a well-known resident, William Sydney Porter (that writer guy with the pen name, O. Henry) wrote in a letter to a friend: "Town is fearfully dull, except for the frequent raids of the Servant Girl Annihilators, who make things lively during the dead of night." After his letter became public, locals and reporters began referring to the murderer as the Servant Girl Annihilator. 

 

On May 23, 1885, a third hapless woman, also a young servant person, became the next victim. Her name was Irene Cross and she lived on East Linden Street, just across from Scholz Garten. A reporter on the scene after her vicious attack stated that she looked as if she had been scalped. This victim was killed with a knife, as opposed to the aforementioned ax. Was this attack the work of the Annihilator or a different lunatic? 

 

As summer dwindled down, August brought forth the arrival of a horrendous attack on Clara Dick. Later that month, another servant named Rebecca Ramey was wounded and her 11-year-old daughter Mary was killed.

 

At this time, the citizens of Austin were scared as shit and began protecting their homes with extra measures. Other cautions, such as increased patrols in neighborhoods, going home before sunset, and 24-hour saloons closing at midnight, we all also put into place. (It's worth noting that despite the legend, Austin's famous moontowers were not constructed during this time. They came later in the 1890s.)

 

Next victims were 20 year old Gracie Vance and her 25 year old boyfriend Orange Washington. They were sleeping in a shack behind the home of Vance's boss when the couple was brutally attacked with an ax. According to the local paper, Vance's "head was almost beaten into a jelly." Gracie was also dragged into the backyard, raped and murdered.

Lucinda Boddy and Patsy Gibson, both only 17 yrs. old, were also attacked and wounded. 

 

Weird note here, up to this point all the victims were African-American, but they were not all servant girls. And many noted that white residents had not been attacked. At least not yet.

 

The final two murders occurred on Christmas Eve (or possibly December 28th), 1885. First, 41 year old Sue Hancock, the mother of two, described as "one of the most refined ladies in Austin," was found in her backyard (now the Four Seasons Austin) by her husband. She had been dragged there while sleeping and succumbed to her wounds.

 

Hours later, 17 year old Eula Phillips, "one of the prettiest women in Austin," was found dead in her in-laws backyard (where the Austin Central Library is now located) she was also dragged into the back yard, raped and murdered. Her 24 year old husband, Jimmy Phillips Jr, sustained severe wounds in the attack. Ultimately, both spouses of Sue Hancock and Eula Phillips were accused, but found not guilty of the murders.

 

After the Christmas Eve murders in 1885, the killings stopped, but the fear was still palpable. At the time of the murders, Austin had been changing from a small frontier town to a cosmopolitan city, but the reputation it acquired because of the crimes put a halt to the city's growth.

 

The suspects

Although approximately 400 men were eventually rounded up by authorities and questioned in the killings, all suspects were released and the murders remain unsolved. However, there are a few names from history that stand out as possible murder suspects.

 

Nathan Elgin was native of Austin and a young African-American domestic servant who knew the streets of his hometown. 

 

The majority of this next part was taken from the website servantgirlmurders.com

 

Late one night in February 1886 a saloon in Masontown in east Austin was the scene of a violent and disturbing incident. The surrounding neighborhood was in an uproar because a drunken, raging man had dragged a girl from the saloon to a nearby house where he could be heard beating and cursing her while she screamed for help. The entire neighborhood had come out in the streets and the commotion caught the attention of a nearby police officer. Police officer John Bracken arrived on the scene and the saloon keeper, Dick Rogers and a neighbor, Claibe Hawkins, went with Bracken to stop the man from beating the girl to death.

 

Rogers and Hawkins went into the house and pulled the man away from the girl and into the front yard. As Rogers and Hawkins grappled with the man, Officer Bracken got out the handcuffs. The man would not be subdued – he threw off Rogers and Hawkins and knocked Bracken off his feet. The man turned on them and brandished a knife. As Bracken tried to recover a shot rang out. Bracken drew his pistol and fired. The shot brought down the raging man.

The man’s name was Nathan Elgin. There was no explanation for Elgin’s rage at the girl, named Julia.

Bracken’s shot did not kill Elgin instantly but it did leave him paralyzed and mortally wounded; he died the following day.

A subsequent autopsy revealed that Bracken’s bullet had lodged in Elgin’s spine which accounted for the paralysis. The doctors had also noticed another detail – Elgin was missing a toe from his right foot.

During the investigations of the crimes the authorities had carefully noted the footprints which were often bloodstained and had made distinct impressions in the soil as the perpetrator carried the weight of the victim.

Apart from general measurements of size and shape, footprints in most instances are not especially distinctive and they would not have been much use to the authorities had they not possessed some unusual feature. But the footprints left behind at the Servant Girl Murder crime scenes did share a very distinct feature – one of the footprints had only four toes.

The authorities never shared this fact with the press or the general public during the course of 1885. The press frequently complained about the secrecy surrounding the murder inquests and argued that making all the details of the crimes public would facilitate the capture of the responsible parties more quickly. The authorities disagreed and kept certain details of the cases to themselves – details that they hoped would eventually identify the perpetrator and link him to the crime scenes.

After Nathan Elgin’s death the authorities unexpectedly had the direct physical evidence they had been waiting for – a foot that matched the distinctive footprints of the killer. But the foot belonged to a dead man. What were they to do with that information? What could they do with it?

To imagine the state of mind of the authorities at that time one has to understand the heightened state of fear and suspicion that was present in Austin at the beginning of 1886. In the month since the last murders in December 1885, the city’s police force had been tripled in size. A curfew had been enacted and private citizens had organized into patrols to guard the neighborhoods after dark. Strangers were forced to identify themselves or be evicted from the city. Saloons and other raucous downtown establishments, usually open twenty-four hours a day, were forced to close at midnight. A new era of law and order had begun. Would there have been any advantage in revealing that perhaps the midnight assassin was dead? And what if Elgin was not the mysterious murderer of servant girls? It was in the authorities’ best interest to wait and see if the murders continued. Maybe the authorities believed they had gotten lucky – they couldn’t arrest, prosecute of convict Elgin, but perhaps the problem had been solved. But in February 1886 it was still too early to be sure. It is important to remember that at the beginning of 1886, the Christmas Eve murders were not the last murders, simply the latest, and the investigations into the murders continued, notably with detectives still shadowing other suspects.

While the authorities were not able to make use of the evidence against Elgin, the defense attorneys for James Phillips and Moses Hancock certainly were. Eula Phillips, wife of James Phillips, and Susan Hancock, wife of Moses Hancock, had both been murdered on December 24, 1885 and both husbands were subsequently charged with murdering their wives.

In May 1886, during the trial of James Phillips, defense attorneys introduced into evidence floorboards marked with bloody footprints that had been removed from the Phillips house after the murder. They were compared to the footprints of the defendant, who removed his shoes and had his feet inked and printed in an elaborate demonstration in the courtroom. Even though Phillip’s footprints were substantially different in size than the bloody footprints on the floorboards, the jury was unconvinced. The motives of jealousy and drunkenness as argued by the prosecution convinced the jury and they found Phillips guilty of second degree murder.

When the case against Moses Hancock was finally brought to trial, the Hancock received some substantial legal help in the form of pro bono representation by John Hancock (no relation) a former U.S. Congressman, one of the state’s most prominent political figures and one of Austin’s most astute legal practitioners.

Also providing assistance for the defense rather than the prosecution, was Sheriff Malcolm Hornsby, who during his testimony, described making a cast of Elgin’s foot after his death, the significance of the missing toe, the similarities between Elgin’s footprint and the footprints left at the Phillips and Ramey murders, and that fact that there had been no further servant girl murders committed since Elgin’s death. Even so, the jury was not completely persuaded and after two days of deliberation, a hung jury was declared and the case was discharged without a verdict.

The verdicts in the Phillips and Hancock trials illustrated the consensus on the Servant Girl Murders and the motives behind them – that the murders had been committed by different persons with conventional motives.

Was Nathan Elgin the Servant Girl Annihilator? In my opinion, he most likely was based on 1) direct physical evidence linking Elgin to the crimes, 2) testimony of Sheriff Malcolm Hornsby as to Elgin’s ostensible guilt, 3) the fact that there were no further Servant Girl Murders after his death, and 4) Elgin fits the criminal profile of such a killer.

***

Nathan Elgin – A Criminology

The Servant Girl Murders were over 130 years ago and few official records pertaining to them have survived. Likewise, there is little surviving biographical information about Nathan Elgin, however the information that is available strongly correlates to traits associated with a Disorganized/Anger-Retaliatory (D/AR) serial killer profile, and the crime scenes of the Servant Girl Murders correspond exactly to that of anger-retaliatory crime scenes:

• In the anger-retaliatory rape-murder, the rape is planned and the initial murder involves overkill. It is an anger-venting act that expresses symbolic revenge on a female victim. Nettled by poor relationships with women, the aggressor distills his anguish and contempt into explosive revenge on the victim… the aggressive killer will either direct his anger at that woman or redirect his anger to a substitute woman. Because the latter type of scapegoating retaliation does not eliminate the direct source of hate, it is likely that it will be episodically repeated to relieve internal stresses. Dynamically, the rape-homicide is committed in a stylized violent burst attack for purposes of retaliation, getting even, and revenge on women.
• The perpetrator tends to choose victims from familiar areas… and may use weapons of opportunity in percussive assaults with fists, blunt objects or a knife.
• The subject tends to leave a disorganized crime scene, and the improvised murder weapon may be found within 15 feet of the body.

The following traits are common to the D/AR serial killer profile and I would argue that they are present in the historical record specifically in connection to Nathan Elgin:

• childhood abuse or neglect
• early violent episodes
• violent fantasy
• resentment of authority
• escalation
• stressors

Additionally, Nathan Elgin would have possessed the locational expertise critical to successfully enacting the murders and eluding the authorities, culminating in a distinctive signature killing style – the attack on sleeping female victim using blunt force to the head, carrying the body away from the house into the yard where the victim was then raped.

Childhood Abuse Suspicions

• All of the murderers were subjected to serious emotional abuse during their childhoods. And all of them developed into what psychiatrists label as sexually dysfunctional adults. 
• From birth to age six or seven, studies have shown, the most important adult figure in a child’s life is the mother, and it is in this time period that the child learns what love is. Relationships between our subjects and their mothers were uniformly cool, unloving and neglectful. (4)
• The disorganized offender grows up in a household where the father’s work is often unstable, where childhood discipline is harsh, and where the family is subject to serious strain brought on by alcohol, mental illness, and the like. (5)

One of the primary components in the creation of the D/AR serial killer profile is a dysfunctional, abusive relationship within the family and especially between the mother and the subject. The mothers often have psychological disorders or they have been victims of emotional and sexual abuse themselves and are then subsequently abusive with their own children. At best the mothers are emotionally distant and at worst they are physically and psychologically abusive.

Nathan Elgin was born in 1866, the fourth of five children in his family. The Elgin family had moved to Austin from Arkansas after the war, to the freedman’s community that came to be known as Wheatville. Nathan had three older siblings that had already married, started their own families and evidently lived normal lives while Nathan was still a child growing up in Austin. However the older siblings’ mother, Angeline, had been a different woman than Nathan’s mother, Susan. (6)

There is no record of what happened to Angeline, she presumably died or separated from her husband, Richard Elgin, but after she left, a woman named Susan Pearce appeared in her place to raise Nathan – whether she was his biological mother is unknown. I think this substitution in the maternal line is significant and I would speculate that Susan Pearce was an abusive catalyst in Nathan’s emotional development.

The 1880 census listed 14-year-old Nathan Elgin as still living with his parents; it noted his ability to read and write, and his occupation as “servant.” He was likely placed into service by his mother. For Nathan, being a domestic servant at that period in time would have entailed working in an environment with Victorian strictures and discipline, submitting to the authority of women, both black and white, carrying out whatever tasks were ordered without argument.  Habitual abuse or humiliation of young Nathan could have been facilitated by such conditions and it is easy to imagine him having suffered abuse in such a position considering the rage directed at this particular class of women only a few years later.

Any abuse Nathan experienced as a child without having the physical ability to stop it, would in the meantime have fueled an inner world of revenge fantasy and anger waiting to be unleashed. Not until he was a teenager would he finally gain the physical ability to express that anger, except toward whomever was the source. The source or its memory, the humiliation and shame they had used to define him, would retain the ability to make him feel helpless and impotent. The result, once he had gained maturity, would be not just fantasies of rage, but their physical expression, enacted again and again upon victims who were substitute for its source.

Early Violent Episodes – Resentment of Authority – Violent Fantasy

• These adolescents overcompensated for the aggression in their early lives by repeating the abuse in fantasy – but, this time, with themselves as the aggressors.
• He is seen as an explosive personality who is impulsive, quick-tempered, and self-centered.

In the summer of 1881, Nathan Elgin was arrested for carrying a pistol and getting into a confrontation with another young man near the Governor’s mansion, “they cursed each other for some time and aroused the neighborhood.” Such incidents were not particularly remarkable for that time period and the newspaper frequently reported similar skirmishes between young “bloods,” however it does demonstrate that Elgin already had a violent disposition at a young age.  

More remarkable was an incident in 1882, when Elgin sent a threatening letter to a deputy sheriff promising to “whip destroy and kill” the deputy the next time they met. The written expression of violent threats and fantasies, especially toward the police or other authorities, is one of the classic serial killer tells. Nathan’s letter was described “reckless and bloodthirsty” in the newspaper, a description that would later be more fittingly applied to the murders of 1885. 

Locational Expertise

Apart from committing the murders in the middle of the night and using the cover of darkness for concealment, an intimate knowledge of the city would have been key to the killer’s ability to elude the authorities.

Nathan Elgin had locational expertise – he had grown up in Austin as it was being built. As a child in the 1870s he would have seen the wood-framed buildings that lined Congress Avenue and Pecan Street replaced by brick and mortar storefronts. He would have seen the streets graded and the wooded hills cleared for elegant neighborhoods, schools and churches.

By 1885 he would have been intimately familiar with how the city worked and moved. He would have known all the shortcuts, the hiding places, which yards had dogs, which doors were left unlocked. He would have known how to go unnoticed and he would have known what was around every corner.

Escalation

• The disorganized killer has no idea of, or interest in, the personalities of the victims. He does not want to know who they are, and many times takes steps to obliterate their personalities by quickly knocking them unconscious or covering their faces or otherwise disfiguring them. 
• [The victim] will often have horrendous wounds. [The killer] does not move the body or conceal it.
• The offender is usually somewhat younger than his victims. 

In July 1884, there were two instances of women, both African American, being stabbed in the face as they slept. The women survived; the authorities investigated them as separate incidents. In August 1884, an African American woman was struck in the head with a smoothing iron as she slept. These nocturnal attacks, though not fatal, were so idiosyncratic in style that they must have been a fledgling attempt by an anger-retaliatory killer who would later escalate with gruesome results. 

In November 1884, police reports mentioned a non-fatal nocturnal assault on a domestic servant as she slept in her bed. This incident never appeared in the newspaper. 

A little over a month later, an African American woman named Mollie Smith was struck in the head with an axe as she slept; she was dragged into the backyard and raped. Her body was hacked to pieces by the killer and left at the scene. 

Mollie Smith’s murder set the pattern for all that followed.

Locational Expertise and Escalation and Signature in the Vance/Washington and Hancock/Phillips Murders

• The disorganized killer doesn’t choose victims logically, and so often takes a victim at high risk to himself, one not selected because he or she can be easily controlled… 
• …the assault continues until the subject is emotionally satisfied 
• The killer’s personal expression takes the form of his unique signature, an imprint left by him at the scene, an imprint the killer is psychologically compelled to leave to satisfy himself sexually.

After four murders the killer had become very adept and perhaps overly confident and by the time he entered the cabin of Gracie Vance he was confident enough to attack four persons simultaneously.

Gracie Vance was a domestic servant employed by William Dunham and she lived, along with Orange Washington, in a cabin in the rear of his property. When the killer entered Gracie’s cabin, instead of finding a solitary sleeping woman, he found three women and one man. Undeterred he proceeded to incapacitate all four as quickly as possible; however, one of the women was only briefly insensible and she went for help while the crime was still in progress.

Neighbors were awakened by the disturbance and the police were called. Dunham and the neighbors went to investigate and a man was seen fleeing the scene. They fired their pistols at him as he made his escape in the darkness. As with the other victims, Gracie Vance was found in the backyard; her face had been pulverized with a rock. The suspect had fled in the direction of Wheatville, just to the west — the neighborhood Nathan Elgin had grown up in. 

The Christmas Eve murders were in many ways the skeleton key to all the murders in that they demonstrated all the specific facets of the killer’s MO and signature — his locational expertise, his ability to improvise and adjust at the scene as well as his emotional escalation which demonstrated the extent to which he would go to enact a very specific sex murder scenario – an attack in the bedroom upon a sleeping victim, then rape and murder in the backyard – even when the completion of that scenario was problematic. 

Susan Hancock, unlike the other victims, was white, but other than that, the murder was carried out identically to the previous murders. It is unlikely the killer had the specific intent to select a white victim; rather something about the location, the house, and the fact that there was an axe in the backyard attuned to the killer’s preferences.

As with the other victims, Susan Hancock was struck in the head with an axe while she slept and then carried into the backyard. Susan’s husband was asleep in another room but was awakened by the disturbance. He went into the backyard, saw a figure standing over his wife and threw a brick at him. Even though the perpetrator was armed with an axe he didn’t retaliate against Hancock – instead he fled the scene by jumping over a fence into the alley. Hancock then ran to the east side of the house to cut him off but he wasn’t there. 

Instead of fleeing into the darkness, the perpetrator ran west, back toward Congress Avenue, the city’s main thoroughfare. This peculiar evasion demonstrated that the perpetrator was very confident about where he was going — that he expected he could hide in plain sight.

It is interesting to note that had Hancock gone west to cut off the fleeing perpetrator he might have been able to stop him, which could have brought a definitive resolution to the murderous events of that year. However, seeing the perpetrator had escaped he went back to his wife and called for help.

Heading toward Congress Avenue, the perpetrator cut through the yard of the residence of May Tobin where his sudden appearance out of the darkness startled a young woman and her male companion – in his haste he could have literally run into the young woman. A confrontation occurs – the man threatens and insults him in demeaning and racist terms, perhaps the woman does too. The perpetrator has to retreat again and this would have been too much. The urge to kill had not been satisfied and would only have intensified after a humiliating confrontation. He follows the couple’s cab across town to the residence of James Phillips. The cab arrives, the young woman, Eula Phillips, discreetly makes her way into the quiet house. Less than an hour later she is found in the backyard, raped and murdered.

The killer could have dispatched Mr. Hancock and completed the crime at the Hancock residence but he did not. Likewise, he could have attempted to kill Eula and her companion in the relative seclusion of May Tobin’s premises. Instead, the killer’s primary motivation was the realization of a very specific violent sexual murder scenario.

I believe a confrontation must have occurred at May Tobin’s residence between Eula Phillips, her imperious companion, John Dickinson, and a very volatile Nathan Elgin. The confrontation had to have made him angry enough to pursue her across town — even though he had no idea where they were going or what he would find when he got there. I believe he was so angry that he pursued her at his own peril, when other, easier opportunities for a kill were in closer proximity.

The bloody footprints left at the Phillips house would subsequently be affirmatively compared to the footprints of the deceased Elgin. 

Austin Daily Statesman 3 June 1887

Stressors

• …by the very nature of their childhood, serial killers are most likely to lead lives full of stressful events. As children and adolescents they lack self-esteem, are isolated and maladjusted, and are therefore poorly prepared for coping with life as adults. 
• Historically, the retaliatory killer’s marriage will have been ill-fated and he will usually be in some phase of estrangement. …If he has a relationship, there will have generally been a history of long-term spousal abuse, which will not likely have been covered by criminal complaints. 

In the study of serial sexual homicides, a “stressor” is defined as an event, interaction or conflict in which the killer is reminded of past humiliations and abuses. To purge his feelings of shame, inadequacy or powerlessness the killer will endeavor to enact a murderous scene in which he is powerful and in total control.

In the case of Nathan Elgin, there is a remarkable example of a pre-crime stressor in the instance of his wife, Sallie, giving birth to a child the same night two women were being murdered on Christmas Eve. I believe that this was more than a coincidence and whatever stressors Elgin was susceptible to were triggered by this event. While the birth of a child would not normally seem to be cause for a murderous rampage, in the case of a D/AR profile it very well could.

Nathan had married Sallie Wheat in 1882. She was a year older than him. They did not live together. It is not unusual for serial killers to be married, however it is rare in the case of the D/AR killer profile because of their volatile temperament towards women. Sallie could have held the power in the relationship; conversely she could have been subjected to abuse herself. There is an indication that Sallie was aware, at least subsequently, of Nathan’s responsibility for the murders – as a means of disassociation she raised Nathan’s son under the surname Davis rather than Elgin. 

Post Mortem

• We read a great deal of theorizing about the series of murders in Austin, that all the assassinations were the work of a cunning lunatic — a monomaniac on the subject of murder.  From what I can learn, I don’t believe anything of the kind, and it is my deliberate opinion that these murders can not only be unearthed, but when probed to the bottom, it will be found that they were committed by different individuals and that in each case they were prompted by lust, jealousy, or hatred. (27)

A Monomaniac On the Subject of Murder would be an apt title for a 19th century dime novel. The quote above by Waco Marshal Luke Moore was closer to the truth than he realized but the ideas he articulated were not exclusive; Nathan Elgin was indeed a monomaniac on the subject of murder and he was motivated by lust, hatred and revenge.

In contemporary criminal investigations of serial sexual homicides, law enforcement will have decades of criminal profiles at their disposal which have been painstakingly created as a resource to match types of murders to specific types of offenders. In other words, they know who they’re looking for. And the more unusual the murders, the easier it is to focus the investigation toward a specific type of offender.

If the Servant Girl Murders were committed in this day and age and the perpetrator had left behind similar evidence, contemporary forensic resources and methods would create a criminal profile and evidence collected could confirm or eliminate potential suspects. The perpetrator would most likely be apprehended very quickly.

Serial killers who are apprehended and convicted are later questioned extensively by the authorities and they are usually quiet happy to talk about themselves because they frequently have an inherent superiority complex and are eager to expound upon their mastery and superiority even though they are behind bars.

It is interesting to note that the wounded Elgin was not interviewed by reporters, which was unusual – almost everyone involved in a shooting at that period in time had a reporter waiting for them after being attended to by a physician. Nor did the police make any statement regarding Elgin. The inquest of his death was held in secret. Elgin most likely spent his last hours delirious as doctors made a futile attempt at finding and removing the bullet that entered his side and lodged in his spine.

If Elgin’s murder spree had followed the trajectory of most disorganized serial killers, he would have continued to escalate until his confidence overcame his self-restraint and he would have eventually been caught or killed fleeing the scene.

Hypothetically, if he had been arrested for a murder, unless he specifically admitted to it, I doubt the authorities would have connected him to all the murders. Had he been arrested and interrogated I think Elgin would have baffled the police, but they wouldn’t have spent much time contemplating him; he would have undoubtedly been indicted, tried and hung in short order. The newspaper account of him would have been a typically villainous caricature from that time period, and people today would still wonder if he was responsible.

So now, another suspect and a possible connection to Jack The Ripper.

 

The next suspect was Maurice (no last name given), a Malaysian cook who worked at the Pearl House in downtown Austin. The Pearl House had connections to a majority of the victims of the Annihilator, therefore this theory took off like a mother fucker..

 

Allegedly, once Maurice left Austin only 3 weeks after the last murder, bound for New Orleans and ultimately London, the murders ended. And although the killings by Jack the Ripper were arguably more brutal in nature, many believe the Austin and London killers were actually the same person — a murderer that began to escalate his killings. Something that has been studied and noted by psychologists and other people smarter than us. Maurice apparently told acquaintances at the hotel that he was going to work aboard ships as a cook to earn his passage to London for a fresh start. A little known fact: the cook Maurice was actually suspected after the last murder and put under surveillance

 

According to Reddit author Sciencebzzt:

 

So many people who follow the Ripper case seem to want him to be a suave, elegant dude. A surgeon or a royal or a tormented upper class freak of some kind. But the facts don't suggest that. People say whoever killed the girls must have been skilled with a blade, that may be true, but the "brutality" suggests they were cut up like animals, skinned and gutted almost. The way a butcher... or a cook... might.

Anyway, back to Austin in 1886. Most experts on serial killers will tell you it's unlikely that the murders will just stop, unless the murderer is dead, in prison, or has moved elsewhere. In fact, most will say that the serial killers M.O. usually evolves, and changes... while the main motivation doesn't. This would explain the difference in the Ripper murders 3 years later... and also why they seem to have the same extremely brutal motivations. Jack the Ripper didn't use an axe the way the Servant Girl Annihilator did, however, this may have been because an axe was not a common thing to carry around in 1888 London, the largest city in the world at the time. In 1884 Austin, a town of 10,000 at the westernmost terminus of a railroad line, an axe was likely less conspicuous.

The scariest part though... is what happened after 1888. Whoever "he" was, he was obviously a highly driven, aggressive murderer, and he already had success (probably) in leaving Austin and getting away with murder.

Well, consider this: After 1888, similar serial murders of women started happening in port towns along major trade routes, like Nicaragua, Tunis, and Jamaica. If the Servant Girl Annihilator and Jack the Ripper were the same man, given the highly aggressive style, brutality and rapid succession of the murders, one quickly after the other... it's likely he killed far, far more girls than we know about, all over the world.

 

Did Maurice leave to avoid the authorities and escalate his murders or did her simply leave because his reputation was tarnished? 

 

The Jack the ripper murders were allegedly from april 3 1888 to 1891. 

 

The Vallisca ax murders were on June 10th, 1912

 

New orleans ax murders May 1918 to October 1919

 

I spent countless hours looking up ship records from 1886 and there is one record of a “Maurice” that went to England from the US. The funny thing is, his name was Maurice Kelly. The Ripper’s last known and documented victim was Mary Jane Kelly. It’s probably just a coincidence but what if it isn’t?

 

TOP 10 MOVIES BASED ON REAL UNSOLVED MYSTERIES

https://www.watchmojo.com/video/id/44882